Skip navigation

As I get deeper into Judge Walker’s opinion in Perry v Schwarzenegger, I become more and more amazed. It is difficult to imagine a federal judge wrote the opinion. It reads like a poorly argued propaganda tract from a wild-eyed gay marriage supporter, not a judge. There are no shades of gray at all. In the opinion, gay marriage supporters are pure,  intelligent, and almost angel-like. Those who support traditional marriage are venal, stupid, incapable of forming a coherent thought; they are uneducated and illiterate boobs who have trouble keeping the spittle from drooling down their chins.

Federal judges just do not act this way. Something has gone horribly wrong here.

Gerard Bradley, at Bench Memos:

Now, one standard test of impartiality is fairness, and even a certain sympathy, in stating an opponent’s position and in explaining the evidence and arguments for it. This is simply what an honest search for the truth entails. Even allowing for the rough-and-tumble of litigation, Judge Walker flunks this test.

On the other hand: Judge Walker credited the plaintiffs’ witnesses across the board, and deemed almost everything of consequence that they said to be true.… 

The plaintiff’s witnesses’ uncanny accuracy is all the more surprising, for they were not exactly non-partisan technocrats. They are leading scholar-activists in the culture war over same-sex marriage.

Several are conspicuously passionate about the injustice of traditional marriage. Some even contributed money to the anti-Proposition 8 Campaign.

That these witnesses had a shared passionate commitment to same-sex marriage does not mean that their testimony was flawed (although I do think it was flawed, in many important respects). 

Their evident partisanship does not even mean that they were unqualified to be expert witnesses. It does mean, however, that an impartial judge would be keen to subject their testimony to searching critical evaluation, lest their “private morality” (to use Judge Walker’s description of the traditionalists’ beliefs about the nature of marriage) color their public testimony. On my reading of Wednesday’s opinion, Judge Walker flunks this test too.

The judge basically takes this stance: The only legitimate basis for law is the conclusions of professors at universities. The moral sense of the people is an odious thing that cannot be allowed to form the basis of law. Only professors, who have published peer reviewed work, are scientific and rational. Only their conclusions are valid. All thought among the non-university crowd is a mere expression of their smallness and stupidity.

The fact that universities are now places ruled by the hard left, places that exclude all opposing ideas rather than welcome (or even consider) them is immaterial. The fact that peer review is now being used to drive those with different opinions out of the field is irrelevant.

Welcome to the rule of judges, and their friends in the hard left universities.

You are now being ruled by the first hundred names in the Harvard phone directory.

%d bloggers like this: